News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.6K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 331     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 894     0 

Chinatown East: Zhong Hua Men Gate

Tewder said:
Actually on the west coast I've noticed a growing design/art aesthetic that is very much a blending of asian styles/forms with local influences (aboriginal and 'canadiana') that uses regional materials (red cedar etc) and that takes its inspiration from the surrounding geographic context (the mountains and sea etc). The fusing of these influences combines to create something that feels very new and organic.
Click to expand...


4921054.jpg
 
There was quite a fetish for referencing Canadian history and using local materials in Toronto architecture the '30s and '40s - two sorts of Ontario limestone, marble from Bancroft, and carved figures on the outside of the 1933 wing of the ROM, and the iconography in the hall of the Bank of Nova Scotia building at King and Bay, for instance. Artists went Canadian, rather than lifting European classical themes.

Less so now, though - the new AGO building uses blue Japanese titanium and Douglas fir glulam from B.C. ... and the ROM is clad in German aluminum. But the results are ours, all ours.
 
True, I'm simply saying that once you take it out of China it is no longer 'authentic'. It's like those mediterranian-style suburban mansions you see around Hamilton, or the faux-chateaux along the lakeshore in Oakville/Burlington.
Click to expand...

I think a purely geographical definition of authenticity does not really work. Let's take the ROM, for example... are the artifacts put on display in the ROM any less 'authentic' there because they are not in their home countries? Is Toronto's so-called authentic ethnic cuisine any less authentic because the chef is making the food here rather than back home? How about immigrant artists making pieces based on the traditional art of their home countries... are they any less 'authentic'?
 
Yeah, I can't see how Tewder's argument makes any sense. People and ideas have been migrating around the world since time immemorial. Why can't a Chinese Arch?

42
 
I do agree that a reproduction can indeed be an authentic reproduction whether it's architecture or cuisine or whatever (degree of accuracy/craftsmanship/integrity etc), but my judgement of authenticity has nothing to do with that. Rather I'm talking about authenticity in terms of a work of art being a meaningful and relevant expression of the experience and context of those who create it. This is how art and design moves forward. This is also how Canadian culture moves beyond its own cultural colonialism and beyond its own trite and superficial cliches (the moose, the beaver etc) to create something new that's relevent to us in the here and now.
 
I think the Chinatown East arch should be seen in the context of the BIA that funded it, and the City that agreed to fund it with them. An authentic faux arch is what we'd expect from the former, and the support of the latter isn't surprising either.

But the context of an ancient Chinese historical artifact in the ROM is quite different from that of a contemporary BIA-initiated faux arch on Gerrard Street. Also, the context of the ROM's reconstruction of a corner of a 17th century Imperial Palace building in their Chinese Architecture Gallery is different from the Chinatown East arch - even though both are objects created in the present day.
 
Tewder said:
This is also how Canadian culture moves beyond its own cultural colonialism and beyond its own trite and superficial cliches (the moose, the beaver etc) to create something new that's relevent to us in the here and now.
Click to expand...

Like Tim Hortons?
 
Urban Shocker said:
An authentic faux arch...
Click to expand...

Is it an arch or isn't it an arch? What is a faux arch?

And of course the beaver and moose are trite; they're cultural icons. We employ them because they're symbolic of Canada to all Canadians - even if they're a sort of lowest-common-denominator. Cleverness doesn't always trump clarity.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I think the Chinatown East arch should be seen in the context of the BIA that funded it, and the City that agreed to fund it with them. An authentic faux arch is what we'd expect from the former, and the support of the latter isn't surprising either.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right US, and I've tried to be careful not to impugn the motive or sincerity of the powers that be behind the arch.
 
TKTKTK said:
Is it an arch or isn't it an arch? What is a faux arch?
Click to expand...

f you read back through the thread and US's thoughtful comments you will clearly understand what he means.

TKTKTK said:
And of course the beaver and moose are trite; they're cultural icons. We employ them because they're symbolic of Canada to all Canadians - even if they're a sort of lowest-common-denominator. Cleverness doesn't always trump clarity.
Click to expand...

Nobody is advocating we dump established icons.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top